Jack The Ripper: The Case Reviewed

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen and welcome back to seventh case review. In this one we will be delving deep into a criminal mind, that was ruthless
and heartless. He has many names, but is commonly refered to as: Jack the Ripper.

A serial killer murdered and mutilated at least five prostitutes in the East End of London in 1888 and because no one was ever arrested or
tried for the murders, crime buffs are still fascinated with the Jack the Ripper case more than 115 years later.

"Jack The Ripper" is the name given to unknown killer due to correspondence at the time from someone claiming to be the killer signed with that
name. But while the murders were taking place, the assailant was know as the Whitechapel Murder or "Leather Apron."

There is some dispute concerning how many victims Jack The Ripper claimed. Some believe that he killed only four prostitutes during his spree, while
others think that he may have killed as many as nine. It is generally accepted that there were five victims.

Jack the Ripper! Few names in history are as instantly recognizable. Fewer still evoke such vivid images: noisome courts and alleys, hansom cabs
and gaslights, swirling fog, prostitutes decked out in the tawdriest of finery, the shrill cry of newsboys - and silent, cruel death personified in
the cape-shrouded figure of a faceless prowler of the night, armed with a long knife and carrying a black Gladstone bag.

—Philip Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper

And how true those words are. Over the years investigations have gone into finding who the killer was that lurked the streets of East End of London.
Who was the killer? And why? Since the crime has never been solved, we must work with the facts and the evidence of the crime and work backwards to
find the killer. With this knowledge in mind, we must start with the victims and the autopsies. The crime scenes are not important right now, since
most of them seemed to be killed in the moment.

The Victims and The Autopsies

Mary Ann Nichols, was the first confrimed victim of the Whitchapel killer. According to the official report:

Her neck had been slashed twice, the cuts severing her windpipe and esophagus. She had been killed where she was found, even though there
was very little blood on the ground. Most of the lost blood had soaked into her clothing. The body was taken to the mortuary on Old Montague Street,
which was part of the workhouse there. While the body was being stripped, Inspector Spratling discovered that her abdomen had been wounded and
mutilated. He called Dr. Llewellyn back for a more detailed examination.

The doctor determined that the woman had been bruised on the lower left jaw. The abdomen exhibited a long, deep jagged knife wound, along with several
other cuts from the same instruments, running downward. The doctor guessed that a left-handed person could have inflicted these wounds very quickly
with a long-bladed knife. Later, the doctor was not so sure about the killer being left-handed.

There have been several theories about how the wounds were inflicted. Philip Sugden makes a persuasive case:

If (the victim's) throat were cut while she was erect and alive, a strong jet of blood would have spurted from the wound and probably deluged the
front of her clothing. But in fact there was no blood at all on her breast or the corresponding part of her clothes. Some of the flow from the throat
formed a small pool on the pavement beneath (her) neck and the rest was absorbed by the backs of the dress bodice and ulster. The blood from the
abdominal wound largely collected in the loose tissues. Such a pattern proves that (her) injuries were inflicted when she was lying on her back and
suggests that she may have already been dead.

Her husband and father later confirmed the body was that of Polly. Polly and her husbang William were in seperation from each other. And to support
herself Polly began to live the life of a prositute.

In 1882, William found out that his wife was living as a prostitute and discontinued support payments to her. (Sugden: she is living with another
man, probably Thomas Dew). Parish authorities tried to collect maintenance money from him. He countered that she had deserted him leaving him with the
children. He won his case after establishing that she was living as a common prostitute. At the time of her death, he had not seen his wife in three
years.

The next confirmed murder was that of Annie Chapman and this one resembled the first in a very odd way.

Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This
is inquest testimony.

"The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was
swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much
swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated...the
stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through
the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck...On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood,
corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where
the blood from the neck lay.

He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must
have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword
bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not
contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the
leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge...he should say that the deceased had been dead at
least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be
more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence...of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the
deceased entered the yard alive...

A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut."

"He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there
were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was now well marked.
There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. There was an old scar on the left of the frontal bone. The stiffness was more
noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the ring finger, with distinct markings
of a ring or rings. The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side
of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch.
The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. There were various other mutilations to the body,
but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck.

The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain, but they had nothing to do with the cause of death. The stomach
contained little food, but there was not any sign of fluid. There was no appearance of the deceased having taken alcohol, but there were signs of
great deprivation and he should say she had been badly fed. He was convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. The
injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the
bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days. He was of the opinion that the person who cut the deceased throat
took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right. He thought it was highly probable that a person could call out, but
with regard to an idea that she might have been gagged he could only point to the swollen face and the protruding tongue, both of which were signs of
suffocation.

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on
the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of
the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing
the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of
anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must
have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one
which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If he had
down it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon it probably would have taken him the best part of an hour."

The Next Confirmed WhiteChapel victim was that of Elizabeth Stride:

Dr. George Bagster Phillips (who also handled the Chapman and Kelly murders) performed the post mortem on Stride. He was also present at the scene
and, after examining the body, asserts the deceased had not eaten any grapes. His report is as follows:

"The body was lying on the near side, with the face turned toward the wall, the head up the yard and the feet toward the street. The left arm was
extended and there was a packet of cachous in the left hand. The right arm was over the belly, the back of the hand and wrist had on it clotted blood.
The legs were drawn up with the feet close to the wall. The body and face were warm and the hand cold. The legs were quite warm.

Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut. This corresponded with the
right angle of the jaw. The throat was deeply gashed and there was an abrasion of the skin about one and a half inches in diameter, apparently
stained with blood, under her right arm. At three o'clock p.m. on Monday at St. George's Mortuary, Dr. Blackwell and I made a post mortem
examination. Rigor mortis was still thoroughly marked. There was mud on the left side of the face and it was matted in the head.;

The Body was fairly nourished. Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish
discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since.

There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle
of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little
downwards. The arteries and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through.

The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep
vessels on that side were uninjured. From this is was evident that the hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.

Decomposition had commenced in the skin. Dark brown spots were on the anterior surface of the left chin. There was a deformity in the bones of the
right leg, which was not straight, but bowed forwards. There was no recent external injury save to the neck. The body being washed more thoroughly I
could see some healing sores. The lobe of the left ear was torn as if from the removal or wearing through of an earring, but it was thoroughly healed.
On removing the scalp there was no sign of extravasation of blood.

The heart was small, the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the right slightly so. There was no clot in the pulmonary artery, but the right
ventricle was full of dark clot. The left was firmly contracted as to be absolutely empty. The stomach was large and the mucous membrane only
congested. It contained partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous powder. All the teeth on the lower left jaw
were absent."

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, London police surgeon called in at the murder, arrived at Mitre Square around 2:00 AM. His report is as follows.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, London police surgeon called in at the murder, arrived at Mitre Square around 2:00 AM. His report is as follows.

"The body was on its back, the head turned to left shoulder. The arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there. Both palms upwards, the
fingers slightly bent. The left leg extended in a line with the body. The abdomen was exposed. Right leg bent at the thigh and knee. The throat cut
across.

The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece
of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design. The lobe and auricle of the
right ear were cut obliquely through.

There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood-coloured
serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction.

Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. We looked for superficial bruises
and saw none. No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No
marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the
front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connexion. When the body arrived at Golden Lane, some of the blood was dispersed through the
removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing.

I made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was well marked; body not quite cold. Green discoloration over the
abdomen.

After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb
and first finger. A few small bruises on right shin of older date. The hands and arms were bronzed. No bruises on the scalp, the back of the body, or
the elbows.
The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely
through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid
was cut through to about half an inch.

There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near the angle of the jaw on the right side of
the cheek. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth. The tip of the nose was
quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the
upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth.

About half an inch from the top of the nose was another oblique cut. There was a cut on the right angle of the mouth as if the cut of a point of a
knife. The cut extended an inch and a half, parallel with the lower lip. There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a
triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear. The throat was cut across
to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches
behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx
was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the
vessels on the right side was just opened.

The carotid artery had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided. The blood vessels contained
clot. All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife, and pointed.

The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death.
We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The
incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely
at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half
inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shewn by a jagging of the skin on the left side.
The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches
and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision,
leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the
abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for
half an inch behind the rectum.

There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all
tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent. An inch below the crease of the thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of
the ilium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium, forming a flap of skin up to the groin. The left rectus
muscle was not detached.

There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium. The muscles on the right
side inserted into the frontal ligaments were cut through.

The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding
from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer. The cut was made
by someone on the right side of the body, kneeling below the middle of the body.

I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but
from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped. The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of
the colon was cut away. The sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly.
Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids.

There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which
were about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long. Liver itself was healthy. The gall bladder contained bile. The pancreas was cut,
but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to
the peritoneum. The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was
cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest
of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured. The bladder was healthy and
uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water. There was a tongue-like cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta. The other organs
were healthy. There were no indications of connexion.

I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground. The wounds on the face and abdomen
prove that they were inflicted by a sharp, pointed knife, and that in the abdomen by one six inches or longer. I believe the perpetrator of
the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a
great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional
purpose. I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five
minutes.
I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away. I feel sure that there was no struggle, and believe it was the act of one person.

The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted. I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person
who had inflicted these wounds. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted. My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the
apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have
been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of
material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and
apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.

Dr. Thomas Bond, a distinguished police surgeon from A-Division, was called in on the Mary Kelly murder. His report is as follows:

"The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was
turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen.

The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress. The elbow was bent, the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The
legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk and the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.

The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms
mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the
bone.

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver
between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on
a table.

The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall
by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes.

The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched and cut by several incisions
running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.

The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the
front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage.

Both breasts were more or less removed by circular incisions, the muscle down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the
fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.

The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the
bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation, and part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin fascia, and
muscles as far as the knee."

The left calf showed a long gash through skin and tissues to the deep muscles and reaching from the knee to five inches above the ankle. Both arms
and forearms had extensive jagged wounds.

The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about one inch long, with extravasation of blood in the skin, and there were several abrasions on
the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.

On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn
away. The left lung was intact. It was adherent at the apex and there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung there were
several nodules of consolidation.

The pericardium was open below and the heart absent. In the abdominal cavity there was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes, and similar
food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

Dr. George Bagster Phillips was also present at the scene, and gave the following testimony at the inquest:

"The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest the door. She had only her chemise on, or some
underlinen garment. I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was
nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at
the corner nearest the partition.

The blood was produced by the severance of the carotid artery, which was the cause of death. The injury was inflicted while the deceased was lying at
the right side of the bedstead."

The left calf showed a long gash through skin and tissues to the deep muscles and reaching from the knee to five inches above the ankle. Both arms
and forearms had extensive jagged wounds.

The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about one inch long, with extravasation of blood in the skin, and there were several abrasions on
the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.

On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn
away. The left lung was intact. It was adherent at the apex and there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung there were
several nodules of consolidation.

The pericardium was open below and the heart absent. In the abdominal cavity there was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes, and similar
food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

Dr. George Bagster Phillips was also present at the scene, and gave the following testimony at the inquest:

"The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest the door. She had only her chemise on, or some
underlinen garment. I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was
nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at
the corner nearest the partition.

The blood was produced by the severance of the carotid artery, which was the cause of death. The injury was inflicted while the deceased was lying at
the right side of the bedstead."

There are many other women that were speculated upon as being victims. However, these are the ones that most people agree are definative victims of
the Ripper. However, to assess more into his state of mind we need to look harder and view his personal letters that he sent to the police.

The Letters

The dear boss letter:

25 Sept: 1888

Dear Boss

I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right
track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last
job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny
little games. I saved some proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red
ink is fit enough I hope ha.ha. The next job I do I shall clip. The lady's ears off and send to the Police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.
Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work then give it out straight. My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a
chance.

Good luck.

Yours truly

Jack the Ripper

Don't mind me giving the trade name

wasn't good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it. No luck yet. They Say I'm a doctor. now ha_ha

Jack ripper would sent a post card to dear boss again:

I wasn't codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip. youll hear about saucy Jackys work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a
bit couldn't finish straight off. had not time to get ears for police thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

And third letter that came with a kidney.

From hell

Mr Lusk

Sor

I send you half the Kidne I took from one women prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise I may send you the bloody knif that
took it out if you only wate a whil longer

Signed

Catch me when

You can

Mishter Lusk

Are any of these three letters from the real murderer? Philip Sugden presents the case against the first two letters, which are signed Jack the
Ripper, being genuine even though they appear to present information that only the killer might know.

First, the claim that he will send the police the victim's ears. This was never done. While it is true that Kate Eddowes' one ear lobe was severed,
the killer had plenty of time, as evidenced by his extensive mutilations of her body, to cut off both her ears and send them to the police.

Secondly, the forecast of the double event has been promoted as a reason to accept the letters as genuine. However, the letter, whether it was posted
from the Eastern District on Sunday night, September 31, or on Monday, October 1, was written when the entire Eastern region of the city was abuzz
about the double murder. It was well known on the streets all of Sunday. So there was nothing forecast whatsoever.

Thirdly, the claim that Liz Stride squealed a bit is not proven. Only one of several witnesses heard a woman cry out. Most witnesses heard nothing at
all that night.

The Lusk letter is more difficult to assess. Dr. Openshaw indicated that the kidney belonged to a person suffering from Bright's Disease which,
according to testimony given by Dr. Brown, the police surgeon, apparently afflicted Kate Eddowes. The possibility remains that the letter is genuine
and the kidney was the victim's, but there is no way to prove it today.

Cadosch testified that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back
to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and 29 Hanbury Street. A few minutes later, he
needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally
heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning. He did not hear the rustling of clothes and he did not look to see what was causing the
noises.

When he left the house, he noted that the clock of Christ Church read 5.32am. He did not see any man and woman together outside, nor did he see Mrs
Elizabeth Long.

On Saturday morning 8th September 1888, Mrs Long was passing down Hanbury-street from home and going to Spitalfields Market. It was about 5:30; she
was certain of the time, as the clock at the Black Eagle Brewery had just struck the half-hour when she passed 29 Hanbury Street(see below). She was
on the same side of the street as No.29 and outside the house she saw a man and woman on the pavement talking. The man's back was turned towards
Brick Lane, while the woman's was towards the Spitalfields Market. They were talking together, and were close against the shutters of No.29.

Mrs Long saw the woman's face, but she did not see the man's, except to notice that he was dark. She described him as wearing a brown
deer-stalker hat, and she thought he had on a dark coat, but was not quite certain of that. She could not say what the age of the man was, but he
looked to be over 40, and appeared to be a little taller than deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and had a 'shabby genteel' appearance.
Witness could hear them talking loudly, and she overheard him say to the woman, "Will you?" to which she replied, "Yes." They remained there there
as Mrs Long passed, and she continued on her way without looking back.

Mrs Long saw nothing to indicate that they were not sober and apparently, it was not an unusual thing to see men and women talking together at that
hour, in that locality.

On 12th September, she went to the mortuary and identified the body of Chapman as being the woman she had seen on the morning of the 8th.

Apart from this sighting contradicting the evidence of Dr George Bagster Phillips, who gave the estimated time of Chapman's death as around 4.30am,
it also proves problematical when compared with the evidence of Albert Cadosch. His timings would have it that he heard the noises in the backyard of
No.29 before Mrs Long's sighting. One possible solution is that Mrs Long heard the brewery clock strike the quarter-hour (ie 5.15am) rather than
the half-hour. This, however, remains conjecture.

Witnesses to Catherine Eddowes Murder

Alfred Long stated:

He was walking his beat in Goulston Street at 2.55am, 30th September 1888, whereupon he found a portion of woman's apron (produced at the inquest)
lying in the entrance of the staircase to 108-19 Wentworth Dwellings. There were bloodstains on it and one portion was wet. Above it on the wall of
the passage was a message written in chalk. At the inquest, PC Long gave the wording as "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".
The apron piece had not been there when he had passed the spot earlier at 2.20am, though he could not say if the writing had been there also. He took
the apron piece to Commercial Street Police Station, reporting it to the Inspector on duty. Long's inquest statement regarding the composition of the
writing follows thus:

"The words that were written on the wall - the Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing. I copied the words from the wall into my report
- I could not say whether they were recently written. I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews. There was a
difference between the spelling"

Daniel Halse stated:

On returning to Goulston Street he was shown the spot where the portion of Eddowes' apron was found in the doorway of 108-19 Wentworth Dwellings. He
also observed the Goulston Street Graffito which he said was "on the black fascia of the wall" and appeared to be recently written. He remained at
the site and gave directions for the writing to be photographed, however attendant members of the Metropolitan Police noted that it was a sunday
morning and the writing may spark a riot against the Jews. Halse suggested that only the top line of the writing be erased and also took down the
wording which he believed was "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing".

Harry Harris stated:

Witness who, with Joseph Lawende and Joseph Hyam Levy, saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Duke Street and Church Passage, leading to Mitre
Square, at about 1.35 a.m. on the morning of 30 September 1888, about ten minutes before the body of Catherine Eddowes was discovered in Mitre
Square.

Joseph Hyam Levy was acting strangly, the inquest corner took information from an interview and in that interview the following conclusion was
reached:

On 9 October the Evening News reported an interview with Levy and Harris. Describing Levy as a "butcher, [of] 1 Middlesex street [sic], Aldgate", it
said "Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but
that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.".

Joseph Lawende stated:

Described as a commercial traveller of 45 Norfolk Road, Dalston, he testified that the three men were prevented from going home because it was
raining. They went out of the club at about 1.30 a.m. (fixed by the club clock and Lawende's watch), and left the building about five minutes later.
According to one report, Levy said that "the court ought to be watched". The couple was standing at the corner of Church Passage, which led from
Duke Street to Mitre Square. The woman was standing with her back to Lawende, wearing a black jacket and black bonnet. He had been shown Eddowes's
clothing at the police station, and believed it was the same he had seen on the woman (thus most reports of his testimony, though some say only that
he recognised them as the sort of dress worn by the woman, or that they looked like the clothes she was wearing). The woman appeared to be short
(about five feet high according to one report), and the man was taller. The woman had her hand on the man's chest, but not as if to push him away.
They did not appear to be quarrelling, but conversing quietly - Lawende did not hear a word they said. He did not look back to see where they went.

A description was reached:

The first publication of the description of the man seen by Lawende was in the Times on 2 October - "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and
5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

Witnesses to the Elizabeth Stride Murder

Israel Schwartz stated:

Witness who saw a woman being attacked in the gateway of Dutfield's Yard in Berner Street at about 12.45 a.m. on the morning of 30 September 1888,
about 15 minutes before the body of Elizabeth Stride was discovered there.

And this concludes the witnesses, the major, witnesses.

After seeing what the witnesses had to say, we can accuratley create a psychological evaluation sheet.

Psychological Analysis

According to the evidence we know that the following is an accurate representation of the killers mind set:

1) The Ripper was someone that lived in Whitechapel. How is this known? Because he was able to manuever the streets without getting caught and the
killings all happened in East end of london.

2) Jack the Ripper could have been a Jew. Infact their is quite a bit of evidence to support this claim:

As stated by Watchmen Alfred Long:

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

But what does this mean?

The jews are men. That will not be blamed for nothing. This means that the jews will NOT be blamed for nothing (Something that they did not do.) So
basically: The Jews will not be blamed for something that they did not do. Why is this a big thing? Because their was a jewish boom in London, infact
Russia threw out over 200,000 Jewish immigrants and they landed in London and other parts of Europe. This was a huge turning point and an important
part of history. Russia was blaming Jews for many things especially after 1881 when Tsar Alexander II was killed my Jewish revolutionaries. This
changed everything.

Immediately Russia was thrown into turmoil. The citizens of Russia all turned on the jewish communities and began destroying the jewish neighborhoods
and houses. Taking advantage of the jewish women. And this forced the exile of Jews from Russia.

Not the only time period and the words by the ripper, but the killings began to mimic stories that were used against the Jews (Anti-Semitism). More
preferably: Blood Libel.

The image shown at right shows the murder of Anderl von Rinn, a three year old boy who became the focus of a blood libel cult in the 17th century.
The "martyr" Anderl is being murdered by two Jews, who are holding him down as they slit his throat.

The above image depicting the murder of Simon of Trent is especially interesting in that it shows a long gash being cut in the boy's lower
abdominal area. In an interesting parallel to the mature modus operandi of Jack the Ripper, the murder of Simon of Trent and blood libel mythology
in general was said to include strangulation, throat slitting, and as shown, a knife attack to the abdomen.

3) The ripper liked to take Organs. What he did with them is unknown. But he could have either eaten them or kept them as trophies.

4) He hunted prostitutes. The question now is why? Well for sexual excitment, pure hate, or both.

5)Joseph Lawende stated that Jack the ripper looked like: "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion,
having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

Elizabeth long stated: she didn't see much except to notice that he was dark. She described him as wearing a brown deer-stalker hat, and she thought
he had on a dark coat, but was not quite certain of that. She could not say what the age of the man was, but he looked to be over 40, and appeared to
be a little taller than deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and had a 'shabby genteel' appearance.

6) The F.B.I's psychological report on who the Ripper was:

White male, aged 28 to 36, living or working in the Whitechapel area.

In childhood, there was an absent or passive father figure.

The killer probably had a profession in which he could legally experience his destructive tendencies.

Jack the Ripper probably ceased his killing because he was either arrested for some other crime, or felt himself close to being discovered as the
killer.

The killer probably had some sort of physical defect which was the source of a great deal of frustration or anger.

7) This person was skilled and crafted in the art of cutting.

8) The Ripper would sexually assault his victims (would cut at the womens reporductive parts, disfigure the vagina, and other things to the vaginal
areas)

But who could this person have been? Who are the suspects? Well the suspects are many ladies and gentlemen. So I will list the main theories and then
mine.

Suspects and Theories

William Henry Bury.

Reasons for suspicion: Similarities between the murder of Ellen Bury and Ripper victims. Ellen was strangled to death, then stabbed deeply in the
abdomen. The police at the time must have made certain links between Bury and the Ripper, as they sent Inspector Abberline north to investigate
the matter. It was also suggested that the words "Jack the Ripper is in this sellar (sic)" were written in chalk on the door of Bury's residence.
Bury's wife was also a former prostitute. Beadle later discovered that Bury was in the habit of sleeping with a penknife under his pillow
(reminiscent of the penknife-like wounds inflicted upon Martha Tabram), and suggests that Bury fits the FBI's psychological profile of the Ripper.

Jill the Ripper:

The notion that Jack the Ripper might not in fact be a man at all, but rather a woman, was one postulated by Inspector Abberline himself at the
time of the killings. According to Donald McCormick, author of The Identity of Jack the Ripper published in 1959, Abberline raised the theory in a
conversation with his mentor, Dr. Thomas Dutton after the murder of Mary Kelly. Testimony given by Caroline Maxwell, who lived in the area, was
central to the argument.

A women as the killer? Interesting.

William Stewart was one of the first to write about the possibility of Jill the Ripper in his book Jack the Ripper: A New Theory, published in
1939. In it, he attempted to narrow down not the identity of the killer but the class of person he might have been by asking four pertinant
questions:

1. What sort of person was it that could move about at night without arousing the suspicions of his own household or of other people that he might
have met.

2. Who could walk through the streets in blood stained clothing without arousing too much comment.

3. Who would have had the elementary knowledge and skill to have committed the mutilations.

4. Who could have been found by the body and yet given a satisfactory alibi for being there.

Stewart's prime candidate, in following with the conversation between Abberline and Dutton over fifty years before, was that the killer had been a
midwife -- possibly an abortionist. He postulates that "she might have been betrayed by a married woman whom she had tried to help, and sent to
prison -- as a result, this was her way of recenging herself on her own sex."

So whats the evidence?

Stewart banks on the fact that Mary Kelly was three months pregnant at the time of her death. She could barely afford her lodgings, let alone a
baby, so, according to Stewart, she decided to terminate her pregnancy. He claims that the murderer was called in to abort the baby and killed Kelly
once she was admitted into the room, later burning her bloodsoaked clothing in the grate and escaping wearing Kelly's clothing.

Chapman was a misogynist with medical skill and American experience, with a foreign look similar to those of witness descriptions. He resided in
the immediate area of the murders throughout the Autumn of Terror, and the London murders ceased once he moved to America, where another was killed in
a similar fashion. Everything fits except for his M.O.. The question to ask here is whether or not a savage mutilator can, in a way, reform himself to
being a calculating poisoner seven years later.

and finally Francis Tumblety.

Tumblety fits many requirements of what we now know as the ‘serial killer profile.’ He had a supposed hatred of women and prostitutes (the
abortion with the prostitute Dumas, his alleged failed marriage to an ex-prostitute, his collection of uteri, etc.)

The Whitechapel killer, who are you my friend? Well as stated above, their is evidence that the killer was a jewish sympath or more logically a jew.

According to the ONLY witness who saw the Ripper and identified him:

Israel Schwartz was a witness to Jack the Ripper, but no charges were brought against the identified due to the witness's (Israel Schwartz)
reluctance to testify against "a fellow Jew." Known to have been insane.

However, the witness is disputed, by most think it was Israel.

But wait. Who was this person that was identified? None other than:

Aaron Kosminski, who was a jew from Russia, that immigrated to WhiteChapel and became a barber. But what about him? What makes him the potential
killer. Accroding to the official report:

He was named as a suspect in Melville Macnaghten's memorandum, which stated that there were strong reasons for suspecting him, that he "had a
great hatred of women ... with strong homicidal tendencies"

Not only to mention that he was witness to his sisters rape by Russian authorities. In which he got pleasure from watching. His father was not around
and he never knew him. When he was younger he had to share a bed with his sisters and one of his sister started to have her period. The blood excited
him. And after this would often associate violence with sexuality. This also was the beginning of his obsession with female organs. He threatened his
sister on one then more occassion with a knife. He had access to sharp objects in his barber shop. Their are reports that he owned a dagger. And other
reports of his fascination with sharp objects.

He was not very dark, but he had a dark tan to him. He was around 5'9 and had a moustache. He matches the descriptions and he lived within a mile of
the killings. The Killings took place between August and November (maybe further back with more victims), but the above are the confirmed cases. And
amazingly the killings suddenly stopped. Why? Well apparently, he was sick and somewhat crazy. He was institutionalized in 1890. But he was brought
in for evaluation in 89'. The evidence suggests that perhaps this man was the Whitechapel killer.

He was a Jew, he witnessed horrible things, he was raised without a father and raised by his sisters and mother (all women), the killings seem to
match Jew Blood Libel rituals, and most importantly he was Identified as the killer.

That is so true. Who really knows? The only reason I think its the guy in my conclusion is because he seemed to match my psychological analysis and
the F.B.I's so that too me makes him the most obvious. But their are other good suspects as well. My second favorite is definatley, Jill the Ripper.
She has some good evidence against her.

Thank you asala. Those kind words mean a lot and are GREATLY APPRECIATED

I loved this case ever since I heard it when I was younger, I
just wish their were more than one report (inquest). So I could check out the info, but their was only one main one. But anyway, I think it came out
well. Thank You again asala!

Myth, my friend I have only scrolled through for the moment, and will have to come back later to read it with the attention it deserves. But just the
letter about the "fried kidney", was enough to send shivers through me. This guy was hannibal lecter! Yikes! "fava beans" and kidne'. Oooo.

Another fantastic effort Myth, is funny I was thinking of doing a Jack the ripper thread and hours later you deliver

I agree that your
conclusion is the most rational explanation however have always felt that it could have been a woman, probably a jewish abortionist who was disgusted
at the people and acts she dealt in day in day out. As you say though who knows ???

And thank you for the kind words and the continued support. It really means a lot. Can you imagine if it is somehow
solved and it turns out to be a woman. Like lady Jill the Ripper, it would make sense and their was no evidence that any of them were pregnant because
their wombs were taken and other parts. The only one known to be pregnant was the one that I listed under Jill the Rippers name above (I think it was
Mary Kelly). Again thank you for the kind words.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.